alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007294EN.01001901.xml

| 6.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/19

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4814 — AIB/FDC/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 294/09)

| 1. | On 29 November 2007, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which First Data Corporation (‘FDC’, USA) and Allied Irish Banks (‘AIB’, Ireland) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of the merchant acquiring business currently owned by AIB by way of a purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 29 November 2007, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which First Data Corporation (‘FDC’, USA) and Allied Irish Banks (‘AIB’, Ireland) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of the merchant acquiring business currently owned by AIB by way of a purchase of shares.

1

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for AIB: active in banking and insurance products and services, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for AIB: active in banking and insurance products and services,

| — | for FDC: mainly a transaction processing services company. |
| --- | --- |

—

for FDC: mainly a transaction processing services company.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4814 — AIB/FDC/JV, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4814 — AIB/FDC/JV, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2007269EN.01001902.xml

| 10.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany), lodged on 2 August 2007 — Kulpa Automatenservice Asperg GmbH v Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-358/07)

(2007/C 269/38)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kulpa Automatenservice Asperg GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a national monopoly on certain gaming, such as sports betting and lotteries, where there is no consistent and systematic policy to limit gaming in the Member State concerned as a whole, because the operators which have been granted a licence within that Member State encourage and advertise participation in other gaming — such as State-run sports betting and lotteries — and, moreover, other games with the same or even higher potential danger of addiction — such as betting on certain sporting events (horse racing), slot machines and casino games — may be provided by private service providers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a national monopoly on certain gaming, such as sports betting and lotteries, where there is no consistent and systematic policy to limit gaming in the Member State concerned as a whole, because the operators which have been granted a licence within that Member State encourage and advertise participation in other gaming — such as State-run sports betting and lotteries — and, moreover, other games with the same or even higher potential danger of addiction — such as betting on certain sporting events (horse racing), slot machines and casino games — may be provided by private service providers?

| 2. | Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that authorisations to operate sports betting, granted by the competent State bodies of the Member States, which are not restricted to the particular national territory, entitle the holder of the authorisation and third parties appointed by it to make and implement offers to conclude contracts in other Member States as well without any additional national authorisations being required? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that authorisations to operate sports betting, granted by the competent State bodies of the Member States, which are not restricted to the particular national territory, entitle the holder of the authorisation and third parties appointed by it to make and implement offers to conclude contracts in other Member States as well without any additional national authorisations being required?

---
No. 38978.

#### Protests 258682-G, etc., of Poirier & Lindeman Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain items consist of articles in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those involved in Abstract 37230. The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 31 was therefore sustained.
Exhibit 31.1

Certification  Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
Daniel R. Henry, Chief Executive Officer of NetSpend Holdings, Inc., certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of NetSpend Holdings, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
March 1, 2011

By:

/s/ DANIEL R. HENRYName:

Daniel R. HenryTitle:

Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


---



QuickLinks
# C_2007235EN.01001801.xml

| 6.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/18

---

Action brought on 30 July 2007 — Caisse Nationale des Caisses d'Épargne et de Prévoyance v Commission

(Case T-289/07)

(2007/C 235/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Caisse Nationale des Caisses d'Épargne et de Prévoyance (CNCEP) (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Sureau, D. Théophile and É. Renaudeau, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 2110 final of 10 May 2007 pursuant to Article 86(3) of the EC Treaty on the special rights granted to La Banque Postale, Caisses d'Épargne and Crédit Mutuel for the distribution of the livret A and livret bleu; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 2110 final of 10 May 2007 pursuant to Article 86(3) of the EC Treaty on the special rights granted to La Banque Postale, Caisses d'Épargne and Crédit Mutuel for the distribution of the livret A and livret bleu;

livret A

livret bleu

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 2110 final of 10 May 2007 declaring the provisions of the French Code Monétaire et Financier which give three credit institutions, La Banque Postale, Caisses d'Épargne et de Prévoyance and Crédit Mutuel, special rights for the distribution of the livret A and livret bleu to be incompatible with Article 86(1) EC in conjunction with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.

livret A

livret bleu

In support of its action, the applicant raises six pleas in law.

The first plea alleges infringement of essential procedural requirements in that the Commission did not respect the applicant's rights of the defence and in that the decision is vitiated by a lack of reasoning.

On the substance, the applicant alleges that the Commission erred in law in taking the view that the special rights for the distribution of the livret A and livret bleu constituted, per se, a restriction on the freedom of establishment. According to the applicant, the Commission committed an error of assessment in taking the view that those special rights, in practice, rendered the exercise of Community freedoms in France less attractive.

livret A

livret bleu

per se

Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the contested decision is vitiated by errors of law and of assessment in that the Commission took the view that the special rights could not be justified under Article 86(2) EC, and by a error of assessment in that it took the view that they could not be justified on grounds of compelling reasons in the public interest.

Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission erred by evaluating the national measure at issue in the light of the principle of the freedom to supply services.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket Nos. ER02-2458-004, ER02-2458-005 and ER02-2458-006] 

Take notice that on April 4, 2007, Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. filed a response to the Commission's March 30, 2007 letter order. 

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding. 

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                 

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov,*                     using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,*                     or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                 

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 13, 2007.                 

Philis J. Posey, 

Acting Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E7-6796 Filed 4-10-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
# C_2007297EN.01003902.xml

| 8.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/39

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 October 2007 — Ekabe International v OHIM — Ebro Puleva (OMEGA 3)

(Case T-28/05) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative trade mark OMEGA 3 - Earlier national word mark PULEVA-OMEGA 3 - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2007/C 297/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ekabe International SCA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: C. de Haas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Ebro Puleva SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Casamitjana Lleonart, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2004 (Case R 117/2001-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Puleva SA (now Ebro Puleva SA) and Ekabe International SCA

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Ekabe International SCA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ekabe International SCA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.

1

---
No. 52734.

protest 139725-K (New York).

#### Francesco Pariante *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the papers failing to disclose any evidence sufficient to overcome the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
No. 56549.

protests 140442-K, etc. (New York).

#### John Aquino & Sons, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Independence Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roy T. K. Thung, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:   (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    /s/   Roy T. K. Thung
Chief Executive Officer and President
May 12, 2008   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.    1
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Michael R. Haislip,certify that:

1.               I have reviewedthis Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Monitronics International, Inc.;

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)              Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)             Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)              Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

a)              All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)             Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:                    February 13, 2007
|        | /s/ Michael R.  Haislip                |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Michael R.  Haislip                    |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer and President |
|   | (Principal  Executive Officer)         |

 

1

----
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-13-0073

SAT Date: 11/9/2012

Print Date: 2/4/2013

Related cases:

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 2 3

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

1 11

Exposure Based Review:

Health: No

Ecotox: Yes

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Inhalation 

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: IRR-E,S,L,MM, LUNG, UNCERT-SENS, AQUATOX-A,C

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-13-0063-77

FATE: Estimations for typical 

Liquid with MP < 25 C (E)

log Kow = 3.30 (E) 

S = Dispersible / 73.2 mg/L at 25 C (ICB / E)

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

BP > 400 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

log Koc = 5.66 (E)

log Fish BCF = 1.85 (E)
log Fish BAF = 1.79 (E) 

POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk-mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong

PBT Potential: P1B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is poor through the skin, moderate through 

the GI tract, and good through the lungs based on analogs. The PMN material is expected to be 

a strong irritant to all exposed tissues based on the amines and the surfactant properties of the 

material. There is also concern for lung effects if respirable particles are inhaled based on 

cationic binding to lung tissues and/or interference with the natural surfactant balance in the 

lungs. There is uncertain concern for sensitization for the . Moderate 

concern. 

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 1.3 aliphatic amine SAR

daphnid 48-h LC50 0.21 aliphatic amine SAR

green algal 96-h EC50 0.078 amide SAR

fish _ chronic value 0.012 amide SAR

daphnid _ chronic 

value

0.023 aliphatic amine SAR

algal _ chronic 

value

0.038 aliphatic amine SAR

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for aliphatic amines and amides; 

SAR chemical class = aliphatic amine, amide; liquid; log Kow = 5.15 (EPI); S = 

dispersible in water at 25 C (P); pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active 

ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness < 150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC 

<2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

1 amide SAR

SARs aliphatic amines and amides

SAR Class aliphatic amine, amide

Ecotox Category None
Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: Becky Jones
|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 1 of K2M Group Holdings, Inc.; |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|                         |
|-------------------------|
|                         |
|                    |
| /s/  Gregory S. Cole    |
| Name: Gregory S. Cole   |
| Chief Financial Officer |
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. EDWARD FLORCZAK, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Messrs. Cromer & Brennan*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Leo Kaplowitz*and *Mr. Raymond S. Londa*for the respondent.

March 14, 1967.

Denied.